Kemi Badenoch has written to Keir Starmer demanding he or a senior minister addresses Parliament over “key outstanding questions” regarding the collapse of the alleged chinese spies trial. “Your Government’s account of what has happened has changed repeatedly”…
“Prime Minister,
I write regarding the alleged Chinese Spy scandal, and to set out several key questions which remain unanswered. This is a matter of the utmost importance, involving alleged spying on Members of Parliament. It seems that you and your ministers have been too weak to stand up to Beijing on a crucial matter of national security.
Your Government’s account of what has happened has changed repeatedly. Instead of setting out the full facts before the House of Commons today, you are planning to travel to the Middle East. If you will not make a statement yourself, will you instruct a senior minister to clear things up once and for all through a full Parliamentary Statement? The Public and Parliament deserve answers and transparency.
First, when the prosecution was dropped on 15 September, Ministers said they were surprised and that they had only become aware of this decision that day.
Minister Dan Jarvis told the Commons and that this decision had been an “entirely independent” one.
But we now know neither of these claims were true. Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public prosecutions (DPP), has said he spent “months” in discussion with the Government, trying to get evidence released. So it was not entirely independent and not a surprise.
Second, you claimed that the Crown Prosecution Service were unable to prosecute because of the failure of a previous government to “designate” China as an enemy in some sense. But this idea of “designation” is a red herring. As various leading lawyers have pointed out, this is not how the law works.
Your argument has been refuted by (amongst others), the former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord MacDonald; the former Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Lord Case; the former Head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove, the former National Security Adviser and Cabinet Secretary Lord Sedwill, and Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge. Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threat legislation, has also cast doubt on the official explanation.
Third, the Home Secretary and your Official Spokesman both told journalists that a crucial meeting in early September did not take place.
But this third line now also appears to be crumbling. Asked whether your National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, had been in “any discussions” about the case, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson did not deny this, instead arguing that Powell was not involved in the “substance” of the case – whatever that means.
Rather than being surprised bystanders, as Ministers initially implied, we also know from The Sunday Times that Foreign Office officials approached the Lords Speaker proposing a ‘deal’ in which China would drop sanctions on Parliamentarians in return for the Chinese ambassador being allowed back into Parliament. The Sunday Times has also reported that “Jingye, the Chinese owners of British Steel, offered to waive the £1 billion compensation that they claim to be owed by the British government for the steelworks in Scunthorpe.”
Your Government is now on its fourth different story about this scandal.
It leaves a strong impression that your Government undermined Britain’s national security because you are too weak to do anything other than appease China.
You must answer these simple questions:
· Is your argument that no minister knew anything of the Government’s interactions with the CPS over the “many months” in which your Government refused to give the CPS the material it wanted?
· Did Ministers at HMT, Home Office or the FCDO ever brief you, the Prime Minister, about this matter or refer to it in any way? Did Jonathan Powell mention it to you at any point?
· Is your Government still denying that a meeting including Jonathan Powell and FCDO Permanent Secretary took place in early September? If not, why did the Home Secretary and your Spokesman deny this?
· Ministers now say your National Security Adviser was “not involved in the substance of the case and discussions around that”. What does this mean? If he was “not involved” in the decision over months not to give the CPS what they needed, then who was?
· Does the Government now accept that what Dan Jarvis told the House of Commons on 15 September, i.e. that the Government had no warning and wasn’t involved, was misleading? Will you ensure that the record is corrected urgently?
· Is it still your Government’s position to claim that it would have been impossible to argue that China was a threat in court? If so, do you think the former head of Public Prosecutions, two former Cabinet Secretaries, and a former head of MI6 are all wrong?
I look forward to your rapid reply.”
